Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis in 1993, made contractual employees in 1996, and given regular pay-scale status in 2000, before being granted "temporary employee" status in 2006 (backdated to 2002). Despite this long service, their plea for regularization was rejected by the High Court, which treated their original appointments as "illegal" rather than merely "irregular," and in 2014, after that adverse ruling, the State terminated their services altogether, even though the Supreme Court had earlier cautioned the State against doing so while the matter was pending.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misapplied its earlier landmark ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Umadevi (2006), noting with concern that many State governments were misusing that judgment's "no back-door entry" principle as an excuse to deny regularization altogether, even to employees who were only irregularly (not illegally) appointed. Examining the facts, it found the appellants had been appointed following a genuine process, with no Rules barring their type of appointment at the relevant time, had served roughly 24 years in total (apart from a brief termination interval), and had themselves been granted temporary status with retrospective effect by the State's own orders, undercutting the State's argument that no sanctioned posts existed for them. The Court therefore quashed both the High Court's judgment and the termination order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellants' services be regularized retroactively from 2 October 2002, with consequential benefits and arrears of pay to be paid within three months.
Long-serving government employees who were only irregularly (not illegally or through a back door) appointed are entitled to one-time regularization under the Umadevi principles, and a State cannot rely on its own inaction to later claim no sanctioned post ever existed for them.
